LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Fashionable (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=877)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-13-2015 03:39 PM

No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496110)
I would prefer to honor Wonk with “No faith in the moral standards of the players as a group”.

Here you go.

Atticus Grinch 05-13-2015 03:45 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496109)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcvAEbMwW2Q

I assume the answer to your question is: Because the NFL specifically gave teams leeway to manipulate the balls quarterbacks use within set guidelines so that quarterbacks could use balls that were a little worn or, less or more inflated, depending on their individual tastes*, as long as they remained within a standard range set by the league. They set up a procedure where the balls would be tested 2 hours before the game to make sure teams complied with that rule.

The balls that are used for the kicking game are not to be manipulated at all, but they are still taken out of their packaging the same 2 hours before the game and, I assume, taken out to the field with the other balls. Seems pretty consistent.

The reason for the two different standards is beyond me. Maybe quarterbacks have more say with the League than kickers. Maybe there's a tremendous difference in how the football flies when it is kicked based on changes to pressure or how worn it is. Maybe the NFL wants kicking to be more consistent than passing.

In any case, your argument is still completely fucking ridiculous. Stick with everyone else and say that Goodell is punishing you guys inordinately to try to show everyone he's going to enforce league rules after the awful year he's had.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/ball

TM

*Something Brady (among others) specifically lobbied for.

Perhaps Burger will next make a case that, if the MLB really cared about corked bats, they’d make the batter hand the bat to the umpire before he was allowed to step into the batter’s box.

Pretty Little Flower 05-13-2015 03:46 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496111)
Here you go.

I would have gone with, "I expect more flirting. Or nudity. Or both."

ThurgreedMarshall 05-13-2015 04:06 PM

Top 20
 
http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3322

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3323

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3324

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3325

TM

greatwhitenorthchick 05-13-2015 04:52 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-13-2015 05:21 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496114)
Perhaps Burger will next make a case that, if the MLB really cared about corked bats, they’d make the batter hand the bat to the umpire before he was allowed to step into the batter’s box.

Or after:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrXVdwIGfuI

Not Bob's Id 05-13-2015 05:39 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 496115)
I would have gone with, "I expect more flirting. Or nudity. Or both."

Indeed - as a thread title *and* a mantra.

I cannot believe that Not Bob was talking playoff hockey or something on his phone when he could have been complimenting GWNC's (truly delightful, IIRC) hair. I really wonder about that boy sometimes.

Sidd Finch 05-13-2015 05:57 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496122)
Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)


If I were NotBob, I would have read it this way in the first place.

taxwonk 05-13-2015 06:26 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496122)
Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)

But was there any deposition involved?

(Yeah, and the rest of you stop pretending you aren't dying to know, too)

taxwonk 05-13-2015 06:28 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496126)
If I were NotBob, I would have read it this way in the first place.

You aren't NotBob and you still read it that way in the first place.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-13-2015 07:55 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Sorry, can't quote because the other thread is closed.

I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years. In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play. I think the whole ruckus is highly overblown, for all the reasons expressed by Charlie Pierce, who has my proxy on this. That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

Not Bob's Id 05-13-2015 08:12 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 496126)
If I were NotBob, I would have read it this way in the first place.

Please. This is the Not Bobster we're talking about. It was all [hair flip] when he read it, and "Ice Cream" by Sarah McLachlan (Canadian, bien sur) was playing on his mental soundtrack.

Hank Chinaski 05-13-2015 08:26 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496130)
Sorry, can't quote because the other thread is closed.

I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years. In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play. I think the whole ruckus is highly overblown, for all the reasons expressed by Charlie Pierce, who has my proxy on this. That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

Or just answer this- do you feel the Pats fumbling less than anyone, and the balls being low on air are unrelated?

Atticus Grinch 05-13-2015 08:47 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496132)
I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried? :confused:

Pretty Little Flower 05-13-2015 09:23 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496133)
Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried? :confused:

I thought his balls were deflated? :eek:

Hank Chinaski 05-13-2015 09:23 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496133)
Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried? :confused:

I'm Jewish so I've never focused on hitler's family details. Maybe he was never married, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have a kid. He broke a few Church rules, I believe.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-13-2015 09:25 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496132)
I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

If you don't want to read it, don't read it.

Quote:

Or just answer this- do you feel the Pats fumbling less than anyone, and the balls being low on air are unrelated?
I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

Hank Chinaski 05-13-2015 09:33 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496136)
If you don't want to read it, don't read it.



I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

Smh.

Pretty Little Flower 05-13-2015 09:35 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hank chinaski (Post 496137)
smh.

pptmhgh.

Hank Chinaski 05-13-2015 09:38 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 496138)
pptmhgh.

2, tiitiaoeilwbinswyam

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-13-2015 09:41 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496136)
If you don't want to read it, don't read it.



I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

I'm convinced there's not actually a correlation. Or even an abnormal fumble rate.

http://statsbylopez.com/2015/05/09/glmm/

Hank Chinaski 05-13-2015 10:05 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496140)
I'm convinced there's not actually a correlation. Or even an abnormal fumble rate.

http://statsbylopez.com/2015/05/09/glmm/

k, I now assume Burger is just messin

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-13-2015 10:14 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496141)
k, I now assume Burger is just messin

I thought you were a scientist and could understand that stuff.

tl;dr version is that Warren Sharp looked at raw stats like fumbles per play, but didn't consider the types of plays the patriots were running - for example a much larger number of kneel downs and spikes. When you look at just non-QB runs and receptions, there's no odd aberration.

Atticus Grinch 05-13-2015 11:16 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 496135)
I'm Jewish so I've never focused on hitler's family details. Maybe he was never married, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have a kid. He broke a few Church rules, I believe.

It’s not often you whiff, but when you do it’s a biggun.

Sidd Finch 05-14-2015 10:46 AM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 496133)
Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried? :confused:

Let me guess: When you were growing up, your parents taught you "The first one can come anytime. The rest all take nine months."

greatwhitenorthchick 05-14-2015 11:07 AM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 496134)
I thought his balls were deflated? :eek:

I like the way that song rhymes Himmler with similar.

Did you just call me Coltrane? 05-14-2015 11:14 AM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496122)
Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)

I'm glad the butt wiggle works for you. I get weird looks when I do it.

Replaced_Texan 05-14-2015 12:20 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 496146)
I'm glad the butt wiggle works for you. I get weird looks when I do it.

http://media.giphy.com/media/A6H1A9rhetsXK/giphy.gif

ThurgreedMarshall 05-14-2015 01:22 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496130)
I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years.

I completely agree. But I don't see what this has to do with anything. The NFL acceded to Brady's (and other quarterback's) requests to use their own balls as long as those balls met certain minimum standards. This wasn't good enough for Brady, so he broke the rule. And no one is going to convince me he wasn't instructing those guys to break the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496130)
In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play.

I hadn't heard it was before the game, but if they had, I agree with you there. Although, it seems possible that the refs were told to really check the balls carefully when submitted before the game and they checked out. And then they may have noticed they were underinflated sometime during the first half and checked them and switched them out at halftime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496130)

Although I generally agree that 2 games is probably appropriate, here's the problem with your article:

"Almost nobody believed anything anyone from the Patriots said back then, and the only way to keep yourself sane at all was to remind yourself that this entire mishegas was over the amount of air present in the footballs used in the first half of a 45-7 game."

The fact that Brady refused to cooperate with the investigation is telling to me. I think they've been deflating balls for years. But at the very least, they surely deflated the balls in the close-fought, cold-weather Baltimore game the week before. And Brady may not be handling this well with all the clumsy cover-up, but he and the Patriots (and the NFL, for that matter), have succeeded in limiting scrutiny by everyone looking at this to the first half of the Indy blowout. Ridiculous. Like I said, a properly-inflated ball is much harder to catch in the cold because it's much slicker and harder to grip. The outcome of that Baltimore game could easily have been affected by the manipulation of the footballs Brady used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496130)
That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

Agree. But you can't separate Brady's actions from the organization. And you guys got caught for fucking filming another team's practice. If the NFL is going to increase the severity of punishment for players based on past infractions, I don't know why they shouldn't with the teams.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 05-14-2015 01:28 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496136)
I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

If you don't want to read it, then don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._pressure.html

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 05-14-2015 01:46 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496148)
And you guys got caught for fucking filming another team's practice. If the NFL is going to increase the severity of punishment for players based on past infractions, I don't know why they shouldn't with the teams.

No. They filmed the Jets' defensive coaches (and their signals) from their own sidelines. They were allowed to watch the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines, and they were allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from other places, but they were not allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines. And there again, I come out in the same place: They broke a rule, but the collective hysteria about it is grossly out of all proportion to what they did. While a rule is a rule, it's hard for me to get excited about the breaking of stupid rules. Both episodes remind of the public shaming that Jon Ronson wrote his most recent book about -- there's something irresistible about jumping on the "Patriots are cheaters" bandwagon, and there's something irresistible about inflating what they actually did. Hank knows they cheated for years every time they didn't fumble the ball, and you know they filmed other teams' practices. The narrative is just too strong.

Tyrone Slothrop 05-14-2015 01:55 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496149)
If you don't want to read it, then don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._pressure.html

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

I hadn't seen that; thanks for posting.

If I read that correctly, the bottom line is that if you do a sober scientific analysis, there are all sorts of reasons to think there has been nothing unusual about the degree to which the Patriots fumble the ball. Nonetheless, the author thinks it's good that someone started the debate by writing a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims, because it got us all into a nice debate over statistical analysis. If you are a stats geek who lives for the day that everyone else cares about stats too, I can see that line of thinking.

I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-14-2015 02:00 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496148)

I hadn't heard it was before the game, but if they had, I agree with you there. Although, it seems possible that the refs were told to really check the balls carefully when submitted before the game and they checked out. And then they may have noticed they were underinflated sometime during the first half and checked them and switched them out at halftime.

TM

Wells Report:
Quote:

Prior to the game, Colts personnel had notified the NFL that they suspected that the Patriots might be deflating game balls below the minimum level permissible under the Playing Rules, although they did not support their suspicions with any specific factual information. In response to the pre-game concerns raised by the Colts, NFL Football Operations staff had notified the head of the NFL Officiating Department, Dean Blandino, and a senior officiating supervisor who would be attending the game, Alberto Riveron. During a pre-game conversation concerning various game-day topics, Riveron told referee Walt Anderson that a concern had
been raised about the air pressure of the game balls. Anderson told Riveron that he would be sure to follow his usual ball inspection procedure to ensure that the balls were properly inflated.

ThurgreedMarshall 05-14-2015 02:15 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496151)
No. They filmed the Jets' defensive coaches (and their signals) from their own sidelines. They were allowed to watch the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines, and they were allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from other places, but they were not allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines.

Uh...I'm not sure what you're talking about.

NFL's no-video rule:

'The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from a New England video assistant on the Patriots' sideline when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Taping any signals is prohibited.' -This whole thing is a quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496151)
And there again, I come out in the same place: They broke a rule, but the collective hysteria about it is grossly out of all proportion to what they did. While a rule is a rule, it's hard for me to get excited about the breaking of stupid rules. Both episodes remind of the public shaming that Jon Ronson wrote his most recent book about -- there's something irresistible about jumping on the "Patriots are cheaters" bandwagon, and there's something irresistible about inflating what they actually did. Hank knows they cheated for years every time they didn't fumble the ball, and you know they filmed other teams' practices. The narrative is just too strong.

I really think you're full of it. If you think that Belichick* and Brady are doing these things for a negligible competitive advantage, you are just delusional.

TM

*And Belichick was accused of filming signals at Green Bay too.

ThurgreedMarshall 05-14-2015 02:20 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496153)
Wells Report: Prior to the game, Colts personnel had notified the NFL that they suspected that the Patriots might be deflating game balls below the minimum level permissible under the Playing Rules, although they did not support their suspicions with any specific factual information. In response to the pre-game concerns raised by the Colts, NFL Football Operations staff had notified the head of the NFL Officiating Department, Dean Blandino, and a senior officiating supervisor who would be attending the game, Alberto Riveron. During a pre-game conversation concerning various game-day topics, Riveron told referee Walt Anderson that a concern had been raised about the air pressure of the game balls. Anderson told Riveron that he would be sure to follow his usual ball inspection procedure to ensure that the balls were properly inflated.

And this contradicts what I said how? Because Anderson didn't say 'extra carefully?'

I suppose the implication is that the refs (and therefore the NFL, who didn't instruct them to be careful enough of the Patriots cheating ways) didn't take enough steps to ensure that the Patriots wouldn't cheat after confirming the balls were filled to regulation? Maybe they should have kept the balls in their possession the entire time, but is this really your argument? "The NFL didn't really care because the Patriots were able to sneak the balls into the bathroom in the few minutes they were in their possession in order to deflate them." It's like you don't really want to be taken seriously.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 05-14-2015 02:40 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496152)
If I read that correctly, the bottom line is that if you do a sober scientific analysis, there are all sorts of reasons to think there has been nothing unusual about the degree to which the Patriots fumble the ball. Nonetheless, the author thinks it's good that someone started the debate by writing a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims, because it got us all into a nice debate over statistical analysis. If you are a stats geek who lives for the day that everyone else cares about stats too, I can see that line of thinking.

I don't think you read it correctly. I posted it because I thought it was a fair look at the entire debate. You can only see the refutation of "a less-than-fully scientific, sensational article that made dubious claims," while ignoring stuff like this:

"Sharp’s version of this study found a huge effect of 88 percent. But after others fixed his data, some of the same players still showed an improvement when playing for New England, of 23 percent."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496152)
I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

Right. You know, it's funny. I say that it probably shouldn't be more than a 2 game suspension. I agree that Goodell is mostly posturing. But when it comes to you, it's clear that with any issue when it comes to the Patriots, you're not really trying.

"The report said all 11 of the Patriots' game balls, when re-tested at halftime, were below the minimum level specified by NFL rules of 12.5 psi. The four Colts game balls that were re-tested were between 12.5 and 13.5 psi, so they were within the rules."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...173408354.html

Whatever. I thought the NFL was pretty ridiculous about this whole thing (too harsh a penalty due to posturing, ridiculous timing of the release of the Wells report, etc.). But you and Burger have been so ridiculous about trying to explain actual fucking cheating away that I'm embarrassed for you.

But hey! Maybe you can just work for the Patriots!: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/patrio...161111297.html

TM

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-14-2015 02:48 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496152)

I'm not going to search to check, but I think that article misstates an important fact about the now-infamous Colts game. IIRC, and I may not, only one of the balls the Pats used was significantly below the limit. FWIW.

There were numerous incorrect reports about the actual ball pressures found.

From the Wells report, all of them were below the limit at halftime (as were at least a couple of the Colts' balls, which were more inflated to begin with). The question is whether that would reasonably be expected (or to that degree) because the balls were being used in cold weather. Based on one gauge the answer is "normal". Based on the other it's "below normal" (i.e., suspicious).

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-14-2015 02:53 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496154)
Uh...I'm not sure what you're talking about.

NFL's no-video rule:

'The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from a New England video assistant on the Patriots' sideline when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Taping any signals is prohibited.' -This whole thing is a quote.

Right, and Bill Belichick acknowledged doing it and said he had a different interpretation of "during the game" than Goodell, which was that it meant for use during a game.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-14-2015 02:55 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496155)
And this contradicts what I said how? Because Anderson didn't say 'extra carefully?'

It contradicts the facts as you believed them up until your post.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 05-14-2015 02:58 PM

Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 496149)
If you don't want to read it, then don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._pressure.html

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

Sure. As it acknowledges, "If Sharp had behaved more like a scientist—and if Slate had acted more like a scientific journal—then his analysis would not have made it into print."

And then spins that into a benefit of stimulating debate and analysis.

My quarrel with Sharp's analysis isn't that. It's with the media that was pretty sloppy about reporting it in the first place and critically analyzing it in the second place. And with fans that haven't bothered to read past the initial breathless headlines about the fumble rate without either following up or bothering to understand the problems with the statistics, but repeat them as if they demonstrated as much as Sharp suggested. (hi Hank!).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com